Integrating Heterogeneous Classifier Ensembles for EMG Signal Decomposition Based on Classifier Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a design methodology for integrating heterogeneous classifier ensembles by employing a diversity-based hybrid classifier fusion approach, whose aggregator module consists of two classifier combiners, to achieve an improved classification performance for motor unit potential classification during electromyographic (EMG) signal decomposition. Following the so-called overproduce and choose strategy to classifier ensemble combination, the developed system allows the construction of a large set of base classifiers, and then automatically chooses subsets of classifiers to form candidate classifier ensembles for each combiner. The system exploits kappa statistic diversity measure to design classifier teams through estimating the level of agreement between base classifier outputs. The pool of base classifiers consists of different kinds of classifiers: the adaptive certainty-based, the adaptive fuzzy k -NN, and the adaptive matched template filter classifiers; and utilizes different types of features. Performance of the developed system was evaluated using real and simulated EMG signals, and was compared with the performance of the constituent base classifiers. Across the EMG signal datasets used, the developed system had better average classification performance overall, especially in terms of reducing classification errors. For simulated signals of varying intensity, the developed system had an average correct classification rate CCr of 93.8% and an error rate Er of 2.2% compared to 93.6% and 3.2%, respectively, for the best base classifier in the ensemble. For simulated signals with varying amounts of shape and/or firing pattern variability, the developed system had a CCr of 89.1% with an Er of 4.7% compared to 86.3% and 5.6%, respectively, for the best classifier. For real signals, the developed system had a CCr of 89.4% with an Er of 3.9% compared to 84.6% and 7.1%, respectively, for the best classifier.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".